Obama is becoming the poster-child for a VERY unpopular war and it's actually the Left that is leading the charge..

SecState Clinton's remark questioning the loyalties of those who oppose the Libya adventure is the kind of rhetoric from the Right that the Left slams...

Once again showing that, to tell the difference between the Right and the Left, one needs a playbill...

Michale.....

Shouldn't that be TOO? I'll never understand military acronyms... sigh...

Yea, it should. But ya know the military. It's probably just a local unit designation as I haven't seen it used widely...

I notice you didn't answer any of my quiz. As for casualties, well, when you fight a war (as opposed to ignoring it and giving it short shrift a la Bush), then you lose some soldiers. Surely you wouldn't disagree with that? Even if you must quote "Airplane" to answer the question... heh.

Touche' :D

I see your point and it's a good point. But for it to be valid, one would have to pre-suppose that Obama is a bigger war-monger than Bush ever was...

I doubt the Left would want to go down THAT particular road. :D

However, credit where credit is due. You DO make a valid point..

Well, that's just nonsense. Because if Obama were a purely political animal, only listening to the polling and not the Pentagon, then he would be pulling out ALL our troops from Afghanistan within one year, and not a mere third of them. Because that is precisely what the polling indicates -- and that is precisely the difference between your caricature of Obama as a politician currying favor and reality. If Obama were poll-driven, he would have announced a MUCH faster pullout then he did.

Again, a good and valid point.

BUT...

But for the fact that the claim is not my claim. It's Obama's SecDef's claim..

Defence Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged that the president had taken account of waning domestic political support when making the decision,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13893464

Further, both Admiral Mullens and General Patraeus have also testified that Obama's plan draws down too fast and is a much riskier undertaking.

If Obama is not listening to the POPs (Public Opinion Polls.... OK, OK, I just made THAT one up.. :D) and Obama is not listening to the generals on the ground, then who IS Obama listening to??

Call it naive, but the politics of re-election should NEVER enter into a Commander In Chief's decision making process.

Obama should do what's best for the Country and best for the troops. In that order..

What's best for Obama should NOT even enter into the equation.

Liz,

If public opinion polls are a "crappy way" to prosecute a war, then would you also stipulate that public opinion polls are an equally invalid way to condone the state-sanctioned use of torture?

As I mention above, for any decision that has ramifications for the security of the nation, Public Opinion Polls should NEVER enter into the decision making process...

A President needs to do what's right for the country, not what's popular, not what will serve his political agenda.

Michale.....

Shouldn't that be TOO? I'll never understand military acronyms... sigh...

[off-subject: no, no, to quote Maggie Simpson's second word ever: "Sequel!"]

I notice you didn't answer any of my quiz. As for casualties, well, when you fight a war (as opposed to ignoring it and giving it short shrift a la Bush), then you lose some soldiers. Surely you wouldn't disagree with that? Even if you must quote "Airplane" to answer the question... heh.

[19] -

"Should the president disregard the wishes of the majority of the people, even when the people are wrong?"

And, of course, the answer to that question is, "Of course not."

I think you got tied up in your own double-negative knots. I think you are trying to say that the president SHOULD disregard the wishes of the people when the people are wrong, aren't you? I would agree -- on a very general level -- with that statement. But then, I'd apply it to something like healthcare, which you wouldn't agree with at all, would you? Heh. That knife is sharp on both sides, brother.

As for:

But Obama has his eye on one thing and one thing only.

As such, the ONLY thing he is listening to are the public opinion polls and NOT the generals on the ground.

Well, that's just nonsense. Because if Obama were a purely political animal, only listening to the polling and not the Pentagon, then he would be pulling out ALL our troops from Afghanistan within one year, and not a mere third of them. Because that is precisely what the polling indicates -- and that is precisely the difference between your caricature of Obama as a politician currying favor and reality. If Obama were poll-driven, he would have announced a MUCH faster pullout then he did.

[20] -

[Note: I answer these as I read them, just for everyone's information...]

OK, I withdraw that double-negative comment, as you caught the error.

Elizabeth -

Take heart in the fact that all the "inside the Beltway" folks know, at this moment, that Biden scored a huge foreign policy victory inside the White House this week. While you are right that it won't become public knowledge until afterwards, when everyone writes their books, Biden was the strongest "get them out as fast as possible!" voice within the administration, and he's getting a lot of kudos for winning the internal struggle about now.

:-)

-CW

Actually, Michale, Obama is listening to Biden ... finally!

Would you like to take a stab at what Biden thinks about opinion polls? This is a trick question and so, you may consider yourself forewarned.

Clearly, I asked two rhetorical questions in my failed effort to make a point about your notoriously unpersuasive method of argumentation.

A point which you just as clearly missed.

Let me try again ... because I'm a sucker for punishment.

If public opinion polls are a "crappy way" to prosecute a war, then would you also stipulate that public opinion polls are an equally invalid way to condone the state-sanctioned use of torture?

Do you see where I'm going with this, NOW!?

And, of course, the answer to that question is, "Of course not."

Ya see!? I even confused myself!! :D

That last part should read:

And, of course, the answer to that question is, "Of course."

In other words, yes.. The President should disregard the will of the people when the people are clearly wrong..

In other words, Public Opinion Polls are a crappy way to prosecute a war...

Michale......

To be clear, I said no such thing.

Yes, you did...

Should the president disregard the wishes of a majority of the people, even when the people are right?

Of course, you could say that you were giving me a "fer instance"...

However, moving down THAT train of thought, the people are clearly not "right" here, so your question actually becomes, "Should the president disregard the wishes of the majority of the people, even when the people are wrong?"

And, of course, the answer to that question is, "Of course not."

So........

What were we talking about again??? :D

The ONLY people who truly know what is going on are the leaders on the ground in Afghanistan.. If they say that removing troops too early will likely erase all the military gains that have been achieved, a GOOD leader, a GOOD president would listen to that.

But Obama has his eye on one thing and one thing only.

Re-election.

As such, the ONLY thing he is listening to are the public opinion polls and NOT the generals on the ground.

He does so at his own peril...

Michale.....

You said the people are right.

To be clear, I said no such thing.

Theater Of Operations...

Secondly, in the Constitution I have here, it says the military of America is led by a civilian leader -- the President. The "Generals on the ground" don't make this decision, and never ever have. When the generals don't follow orders, they get fired (see: MacArthur). Even Ron Paul said so during the recent Republican debate, although all the other GOP candidates hewed the line you're suggesting.

Of course, the final decision rests with the CiC... But any CinC worth their salt will listen to the generals and give credence to their requests.

Look at all the history of this country. Every time a CinC ignored the generals on the ground, it ended very badly...

Thirdly, when has ANY general on the ground suggested he needs less troops, and to please send home a bunch of the ones he's got? At any time in American history? In any war?

Desert Storm... And look how well THAT ended.. Well, except for taking down Saddam...

[totally off-subject, I hear they're talking about a Bueller sequel...]

A sequel or a remake???

I also saw they are doing a FOOTLOOSE remake.. :D

PS. All of this goes to show, my prediction was right -- no matter what number Obama said, both sides would immediately attack him with cries of "Too fast!" and "Too slow!"

You were dead on ballz accurate!! :D Like I said, Obama was hoping to appease someone but he turns out appeasing NO ONE...

Oh well, just one more thing the Right can beat him up over for 2012...

Here's a quick quiz for you:

Puts things in perspective a bit, doesn't it?

Did you notice that casualties under Obama has increased more than 5-fold??

That's the perspective that concerns me..

Obama is not a leader of men. That much is certain..

Kevin,

Also, glad to hear you got to meet up with Matt again. You are both folks I'd love to meet in my remaining lifetime (and Liz, David, and the other long time regulars on this site). Michale too, although if he drives me nuts in the comments section I suspect the world would implode should we meet in person :-)

:D Most likely...

Michale.....

I don't think we'll know what Biden really thinks about Afghanistan until he writes another book, sometime after his second term as vice president concludes.

I'm glad he is where he is but, as veep, he is no longer able to speak freely in public. I miss hearing him speak his mind on these big issues and the unvarnished truth that always characterized his analyses.

Sigh ...

Also, glad to hear you got to meet up with Matt again. You are both folks I'd love to meet in my remaining lifetime (and Liz, David, and the other long time regulars on this site). Michale too, although if he drives me nuts in the comments section I suspect the world would implode should we meet in person :-)

Kevin.

Kevin.

Here's a quick quiz for you:

Which president, Bush or Obama, has taken Afghanistan more seriously?

Which president wanted to fight this war on the cheap for years?

Which president spent 7 years and accomplished very little in Afghanistan, while distracted elsewhere?

Which president lost a golden opportunity to get Bin Laden due to this distraction, and which president finally killed him?

And finally... next September, after Obama's second surge is gone, which president will still have TWICE the force in Afghanistan than the other one ever had?

Puts things in perspective a bit, doesn't it?

:-)

-CW

First off, what's a TOP? Theater Of... um... ?

Sorry for the ignorance, but that's why I ask.

Secondly, in the Constitution I have here, it says the military of America is led by a civilian leader -- the President. The "Generals on the ground" don't make this decision, and never ever have. When the generals don't follow orders, they get fired (see: MacArthur). Even Ron Paul said so during the recent Republican debate, although all the other GOP candidates hewed the line you're suggesting.

Thirdly, when has ANY general on the ground suggested he needs less troops, and to please send home a bunch of the ones he's got? At any time in American history? In any war?

As you would say: "Anyone? Bueller?"

[totally off-subject, I hear they're talking about a Bueller sequel...]

Fourth, the people do indeed think it's time to bring the boys and girls home. [Sorry for that sexist "girls" there, but you either use the original phrase which doesn't involve females, or you keep to the children's terms, so there.] And, in a democracy where the people elect the civilian leadership of the miltiary, they do indeed have a voice in this debate.

I find it amusing that you rant and rail against Obama when he does something the public's not behind, but then when the public is behind something Obama's doing which you don't like, then "the people are wrong."

:-)

-CW

PS. All of this goes to show, my prediction was right -- no matter what number Obama said, both sides would immediately attack him with cries of "Too fast!" and "Too slow!"

Personally, I think he split the difference pretty well. I wanted to see more out in the initial phase, but I was surprised that the second phase is only a year long, and that the whole surge will be coming out in that time period. So, as far as I'm concerned, what Obama laid out is pretty much OK by me.

Liz -

Reports are that Biden won the debate within the administration on this one. Just FYI...

-CW

You said the people are right.

In this instance, the people are not right.

How CAN they be?? They have absolutely NO IDEA what is going on in the TOP.

The people aren't right. They are ignorant..

Michale.....

I don't think you ever have.

Now THERE'S a shocker!! :D

Seriously, I do see your point.

You are saying that the will of the people is paramount..

I disagree...

The generals on the ground in the TOP should be paramount.

THAT is how wars are won...

Public Opinion polls have NEVER won a war in the history of the world...

Michale.....

Obama’s Afghanistan Pitch Doesn’t Pass the Smell Test
http://tinyurl.com/64b587o

I think you will like her article VERY much, Liz.. :D

Michale.....

Let me answer your question with one of my own.

What makes the "people" right and the generals on the ground wrong?

More specifically, who is in a better position to know what's best for the Afghanistan TOP??

The people and President Obama??

Or the leaders on the ground in Afghanistan??

You simply CANNOT prosecute a war based on public opinion polls...

Vietnam taught us that..

Unfortunately, Obama has forgotten that lesson, if he ever even understood it in the first place..

And the results are likely to be equally tragic..

Simply one more reason why Obama doesn't have the experience to be a good leader.

Michale.....

Let me rephrase the question in a way that I know will resonate with you ...

Should the president disregard the wishes of a majority of the people, even when the people are right?

Fine.

Who says they are wrong?

The President...

What experience does Obama draw on to come to the conclusion that the generals are wrong??

None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

President Obama telling the generals how to successfully prosecute a war is like me telling Joshua how to successfully be a teacher..

It's ludicrous in the extreme.

Obama's speech was a campaign speech straight out of the 2008 election.

His sole agenda is getting re-elected, let the welfare of the country be damned..

I never thought it possible, but I actually lost MORE respect for Obama...

Michale.....

Should the president follow the advice of the generals even when the generals are wrong?

1. Obama is doing this over the objections of the generals on the ground...

and

B. Obama is doing this strictly as a political stunt to appease someone... ANYONE....

But, as you indicate, rather than appease anyone it will likely just piss off everyone...

Michale.....